Many are having difficulty keeping people out of photos. The main points about why I think the forum shouldn't show photos of people were posted and discussed in the first 'people photos' thread. I don't want to go over that again but still believe those views are right for our forum.

However, because of various points of view put forward, we'll try a compromise. Never let it be said I don't listen . Would everyone stick to keeping people in photographs well in the background and certainly not recognisable. The question arises as to what is 'well in the background'? I'm sorry but I'm still going to have to be the judge of that but hope that people in photographs won't start getting nearer and nearer to the camera. Anyway, perhaps relaxing the rule will give a little more scope of what photos can be shown in the forum and also make some of our valued members happier.

The 'Family, Friends & Me thread won't be opening again. I am persuaded that that showing ourselves and especially children perhaps isn't right for the forum. Let's just remember that the photo forums always were primarily for displaying objects and places of interest.

_________________________Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Thanks Martin, far better as the real world is full of them. I know I was finding it hard to pick ones with nobody at all, and had to leave out some good ones which did have vague figures about somewhere. I hope most people also would prefer to see some life in some of the photos as well as me.

Edited by satguru (Wed Dec 10 200810:14 AM)

_________________________
Does the brain create or receive consciousness?

loved your shot of the scott memorial ... i never really got a good photo of it last year when in edinburgh, it was my last day there and the rain was pelting down ...

i am glad as well for the relaxation of the rule ... although many times, people are the subject of my photos, have lovely photos of police overseas, and one of a vicar walking in the square ... but yes, they do have their right to privacy, as we all do ...

thanks tw for rethinking your views, its such a wacky world we live in, that we have to always consider these things in our published work ...

I'm glad it was thought an OK move. The whole thread is about what I thought was right for the forum. Our much liked and respected Copago might interpret the rules differently, or change them as seen fit. She's not doing a bad job ..OK, I'm joking . She's doing a wonderful job!

_________________________Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

People might check their photo editing software for a blur tool. I used the one in Photoshop Elements to smudge out some faces in a July 4 parade photo (the one with the Model A Fords posted in October Photo-a-Day) that I thought could be recognized. The tool is sizable and the degree of blur is configurable, so the result can be relatively unobtrusive.

I'm an administrator for a Flickr special interest group, and one of our members has just had all their images removed from the site, due to them having posted 'candid' images of people in public. The member had over 6,000 images on Flickr, which must have taken a huge amount of time and effort to upload and describe, yet all images were removed, not just the relatively small number of people images!Hence it would seem that the 'No People' rule is both relevant and important!

Is it anywhere in their rules? I say that as there are hundreds of candid/street photography groups, and never come across this before. Obviously they can decide whatever rules they like, although there aren't any laws broken whatever they have shown. I wonder if the story's a bit more complex than this, and if isn't I can see many thousands of paying members suddenly withdrawing their cash. Then there may be no Flickr to withdraw pictures at all. I'll have to investigate this more now as has implications for every person there.

_________________________
Does the brain create or receive consciousness?

I too think the story must be more complex. Here's what Flickr won't let you do, according to their Community Guidelines:

Quote: What not to doHereís the deal: In most circumstances, we like to give second chances, so weíll send you a warning if you step across any of the lines listed below. Subsequent violations can result in account termination without warning.

Donít upload anything that isn't yours.This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time. Donít forget the children.Take the opportunity to filter your content responsibly. If you would hesitate to show your photos or videos to a child, your mum, or Uncle Bob, that means it needs to be filtered. So, ask yourself that question as you upload your content and moderate accordingly. If you donít, itís likely that one of two things will happen. Your account will be reviewed then either moderated or terminated by Flickr staff. Donít show nudity in your buddy icon.Only content considered "safe" is appropriate for your buddy icon. If we find that you've uploaded a buddy icon that contains "moderate" or "restricted" content, we'll remove the buddy icon, moderate your account as ďrestrictedĒ and send you a warning. If we find you doing it again, weíll terminate your account. Donít upload content that is illegal or prohibited.If we find you doing that, your account will be deleted and we'll take appropriate action, which may include reporting you to the authorities. Donít vent your frustrations, rant, or bore the brains out of other members.Flickr is not a venue for you to harass, abuse, impersonate, or intimidate others. If we receive a valid complaint about your conduct, weíll send you a warning or terminate your account. Donít be creepy.You know the guy. Don't be that guy. Donít use your account to host web graphics like logos and banners.Your account will be terminated if we find you using it to host graphic elements of web page designs, icons, smilies, buddy icons, forum avatars, badges, and other non-photographic elements on external web sites. Donít use Flickr for commercial purposes.Flickr is for personal use only. If we find you selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream, we will terminate your account. Any other commercial use of Flickr, Flickr technologies (including APIs, FlickrMail, etc), or Flickr accounts must be approved by Flickr. For more information on leveraging Flickr APIs, please see our Services page. If you have other open questions about commercial usage of Flickr, please feel free to contact us.

Nothing about 'no people' allowed. Flickr even has a People in Photos feature that let's you identify people in your photo, if that person has a Yahoo account.

There are thousands of street photography photos posted, and thousands more with crowd scenes, or passersby. Even "Explore" has featured these type of shots. There has to be more to this story.

Most cases I've seen in Flickr where a person's account has been deleted is more likely to be a rogue admin with a grudge, rather than Flickr staff, and if it has been staff, then it's been a transgression of one of the above stated rules, e.g. commercial use or selling services.

Outside of Flickr, as to what we may or may not photograph in general, here's a link to <a href="http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf" target="_blank">The Photographer's Rights</a> part of which states:

Quote: Members of the public have a verylimited scope of privacy rights whenthey are in public places. Basically,anyone can be photographed withouttheir consent except when they havesecluded themselves in places wherethey have a reasonable expectation ofprivacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,medical facilities, and inside their homes

So, anything or anyone in public is perfectly legal to photograph, with a few exceptions such as military and national security buildings. It's a common misconception that one needs to get the permission of a person before capturing their image. If this were true, all security cameras would be operating illegally.

edited to add: For anyone who does do street photography either of people or buildings, it's a good idea to print the Photographer's Rights out, and carry it in your camera bag.

Edited by MadMags (Thu Dec 24 200905:22 PM)

_________________________A smile is a curved line that sets things straight. ~ Anon.

I never did think it was a question of legality or rights. I'd still say it isn't right to take a photograph of someone and then put it on the Internet without asking them. Also, when Photo-a-Day was created, it never was intended to be like a family album. It was a place to post photos of interesting places and objects.

To be blunt, I wouldn't want to post photos of my family or friends on the Internet. Anyone could download a photograph of a nice looking young person and photoshop it in any way they wanted to. Unlikely perhaps but definitely possible.

Edited by tellywellies (Thu Dec 24 200905:42 PM)

_________________________Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

There was a case I remember reading about, about a man who was photographing inside a train station. Unfortunately I don't remember which one. He was hassled by the transit police, cuffed and detained overnight - all illegally on the transit police's part. Ironically he was taking those photos for a competition that that particular line was running for "Best Photo of so-and-so's rail line.

Had he known his rights a bit better, that probably would never have happened.

Edit: Google tells me it was Amtrak.

Edited by MadMags (Thu Dec 24 200905:59 PM)

_________________________A smile is a curved line that sets things straight. ~ Anon.

Private places can do whatever they like, the photographers rights Mags posted apply in public and are the same as the ones here, and our only exception is the new terrorism act which has yet to be tested in court, so the police are basically stopping anyone they feel like the same as Amtrak. The chief constable had to publish a piece in the paper explaining our rights but doesn't seem to have stopped them doing it. Funnily enough my mother found herself in a calendar this year although had no idea they took the photo at the time, and wasn't bothered at all. I'd be far more concerned if someone was pointing a gun at me than a camera to be fair.

Edited by satguru (Thu Dec 24 200908:55 PM)

_________________________
Does the brain create or receive consciousness?

Veronikkamarrz, the Casinos have no legal right to take your film, memory card or camera from you. That is theft, and they can be charged. They DO have the right to ask you to stop, and/or to leave the premises, and you must then do so. If you don't then the police may be called in, and they are the only ones who can confiscate your film IF they arrest you, at which time it is held as evidence. Otherwise they need a court order to take your film.

They Casinos may 'tell' you they have the right to confiscate it, but they don't.

_________________________A smile is a curved line that sets things straight. ~ Anon.